G.R. No. 179323, November 28, 2011
VICENTE MANZANO, JR., Petitioner, vs. MARCELINO GARCIA, Respondent.

FACTS

This case involves a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-25464 in the name of respondent Marcelino Garcia. A deed of pacto de retro sale dated May 26, 1992, was allegedly executed by Garcia in favor of Constancio Manzano (petitioner Vicente Manzano, Jr.’s predecessor-in-interest) for ₱80,500.00, with a three-month repurchase period. After Constancio’s death, Vicente, as administrator of the estate, filed a petition for consolidation of ownership (Civil Case No. 93-610) when Garcia did not redeem the property. Garcia opposed, alleging the deed was a forgery, claiming he and his wife were in the United States from June 1, 1988, to November 14, 1992, and could not have executed it on May 26, 1992. Garcia filed a separate complaint for annulment of the pacto de retro sale and recovery of title (Civil Case No. 94-097), asserting he discovered the document only after receiving a demand letter and that an impostor using the wrong middle initial and address had executed it. The cases were consolidated. During trial, Vicente presented the TCT and tax declaration to support the deed’s due execution. Garcia testified the signatures on the deed were not his or his wife’s, presenting his passport and driver’s license bearing different signatures. The notary public, Atty. Demosthenes Mediante, Jr., and a witness, Perla Babano, both testified that the person who executed the deed was not the Garcia present in court. The trial court dismissed Garcia’s complaint and declared the deed valid, granting consolidation in favor of Vicente, citing Garcia’s failure to present an expert witness to prove forgery and doubting the testimonies of the notary and witness. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, declaring the pacto de retro sale void ab initio, ordering the return of the title to Garcia and cancellation of the annotation, finding the signatures plainly different from Garcia’s customary ones and that the presumption of regularity of the notarized document was overcome.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the deed of pacto de retro sale void ab initio based on a finding of forgery, without requiring expert testimony, due to the obvious dissimilarity between the signatures on the deed and Garcia’s customary signatures.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that expert testimony is not mandatory to prove forgery; the testimony of a witness who is familiar with the genuine signature, or a comparison by the court of the questioned signature with other authenticated signatures, is sufficient. The Court found it plainly apparent from the records that the alleged signature of Garcia on the pacto de retro sale was utterly dissimilar from his customary signatures appearing on his passport, driver’s license, and pleadings. This obvious variance, coupled with the testimonies of the notary public and the witness that an impostor executed the deed, sufficiently established forgery. Consequently, the pacto de retro sale, being an absolute nullity for having been executed by one not the owner or authorized by the owner, is void ab initio under Article 1409 in relation to Article 1505 of the Civil Code. The Court rejected the petitioner’s arguments, ruling that the appellate court did not err in its findings and conclusions.